Gibson's Blood Libel

When you retell a story in which the role of the Jews is central and give it the most offensive, pre-Vatican II treatment possible, you can hardly claim, "I didn't mean it."

Every people has its story. Every people has the right to its story. And every people has a responsibility for its story.

Muslims have their story: God's revelation to the final prophet. Jews have their story: the covenant between man and God at Sinai.

Christians have their story too: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of coreligionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. This particular story involves other people. With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly.

Because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story; it is a story with its own story -- a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands. This history is what moved Vatican II, in a noble act of theological reflection, to decree in 1965 that the Passion of Christ should henceforth be understood with great care so as to unteach the lesson that had been taught for almost two millennia: that the Jews were Christ killers.

Vatican II did not question the Gospels. It did not disavow its own central story. It took responsibility for it, and for the baleful history it had spawned. Recognizing that all words, even God's words, are necessarily subject to human interpretation, it ordered an understanding of those words that was most conducive to recognizing the humanity and innocence of the Jewish people.

The Vatican did that for good reason. The blood libel that this story affixed upon the Jewish people had led to countless Christian massacres of Jews and prepared Europe for the ultimate massacre -- 6 million Jews systematically murdered in six years -- in the heart, alas, of a Christian continent. It is no accident Vatican II occurred just two decades after the Holocaust, indeed in its shadow.

Which is what makes Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" such a singular act of interreligious aggression. He openly rejects the Vatican II teaching and, using every possible technique of cinematic exaggeration, gives us the pre-Vatican II story of the villainous Jews.

His Leni Riefenstahl defense -- I had other intentions -- does not wash. Of course he had other intentions: evangelical, devotional, commercial. When you retell a story in which the role of the Jews is central, and take care to give it the most invidious, pre-Vatican II treatment possible, you can hardly claim, "I didn't mean it."

His other defense is that he is just telling the Gospel story. Nonsense.

His other defense is that he is just telling the Gospel story. Nonsense. There is no single Gospel story of the Passion; there are subtle differences among the four accounts. Moreover, every text lends itself to interpretation. There have been dozens of cinematic renditions of this story, from Griffith to Pasolini to Zeffirelli. Gibson contradicts his own literalist defense when he speaks of his right to present his artistic vision. Artistic vision means personal interpretation.

And Gibson's personal interpretation is spectacularly vicious. Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus's scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson's movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film. Why 10? Why not five? Why not two? Why not zero, as in Luke? Gibson chose 10.

In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging. In Gibson's movie they do. When it comes to the Jews, Gibson deviates from the Gospels -- glorying in his artistic vision -- time and again. He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up. And these deviations point overwhelmingly in a single direction -- to the villainy and culpability of the Jews.

The most subtle, and most revolting, of these has to my knowledge not been commented upon. In Gibson's movie, Satan appears four times. Not one of these appearances occurs in the four Gospels. They are pure invention. Twice, this sinister, hooded, androgynous embodiment of evil is found . . . where? Moving among the crowd of Jews. Gibson's camera follows close up, documentary style, as Satan glides among them, his face popping up among theirs -- merging with, indeed, defining the murderous Jewish crowd. After all, a perfect match: Satan's own people.

Perhaps this should not be surprising, coming from a filmmaker whose public pronouncements on the Holocaust are as chillingly ambiguous and carefully calibrated as that of any sophisticated Holocaust denier. Not surprising from a man who says: "I don't want to lynch any Jews. I mean, it's like it's not what I'm about. I love them. I pray for them."

Featured at Aish.com:

About the Author

Charles Krauthammer is a sydicated columnist for the Washington Post, and a contributor on Fox News. He has been named by the Financial Times the most influential commentator in America, and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Distinguished Commentary.

Visitor Comments: 17

(17)
Leonard Jablon,
August 3, 2006 12:00 AM

Give us Gibson's E-mail address-so we can chastise him

Is there an e-mail address where we can personally tell this anti-semite how we feel? Please contact me with one, because I have not been able to find one, even at his ICON website.Sincerely,Len Jablon

(16)
Anonymous,
June 21, 2006 12:00 AM

Mel Gibson is gone for me

I will not see a movie of his without recalling what a fool he is about Jews and the Holcaust.
And his bloodlust is appalling now.

(15)
Stephanie,
March 27, 2004 12:00 AM

Effect...?

I'm curious to know what the ultimate effect, on the people of our world, will be...

There is so much hate and violence now...

(14)
Natalie Wood,
March 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Gibson's Film

I saw the film here in Greater Manchester, England with a scholarly friend, two nights ago, a little before its general release in Britain. He is a lay-person but like many rabbis across the Orthodox-Progressive divide,he condemned its host of (ocasionally funny)inaccuracies and although I'm no scholar myself, we both felt it could be nothing else but antisemitic as it is based on the Christian gospels which positively ooze antisemitism in patches.

As a piece of film, I'm bound to say it does nothing but serve what I allege to be Gibson's almost complacently arrogant lust for blood as evinced in many of his other works. In a short space, I'm bound to conclude sardonically: Is this what he thinks women want: a nice juicy bit of rape and pillage?

I allege that Gibson may be a very violent, sado-masochistic individual who channels his poisonous "passions" through what is laughingly called his "art".

(13)
Anonymous,
March 23, 2004 12:00 AM

passion--how emotional

I agree with this article but here comes the but. I have the same reaction to some of the Passion claims as I do to some of the Palestinian claims, eek, they're making us look bad. And like the Palestinian issue, Jewish responses to the Passion that are based on "facts" are not going to be persuasive in changing the tide of emotion that supports both issues. We should not engage in the Palestinian argument by citing facts, they have their own "facts," and the same applies to Gibson. The Palestinians have cleverly stuck to one answer for all horrors, we are occupied, we will do whatever until we are not occupied, the simplicity and consistency of this response, aped by large portions of their community has overcome accuracy and become the bumper sticker shorthand to describe the issue, even by some Jews. The same with Gibson, we should not be addressing the "facts", we should come up with the core emotional objection to this movie which is its portrayal of Jews as stereotyped ugly, bad teethed, money hungry people, a slap in the face like portraying any other stereotype of an ethnicity. By handling this movie about the Christian past according to Gibson, we can learn a thing or two about handling more current issues--the facts are besides the point for most people. It's hollywood Christianity, it's easy, it's grandiose and it's emotional. I think we can learn a thing or two about public portrayal of Jewish response--keep it simple, stop the public exploration of every possible range of Jewish response that simply makes our public appearance one of a people who never agree with one another.

(12)
Anonymous,
March 12, 2004 12:00 AM

Gibson not only plays with history but misses the point (as do many; not all; Christians) Jesus was a JEW. He was observant and true to his inner faith. Christianity did NOT exist until almost 300 years after his death. He was born and died a Jew.

Gibson is so off base here - and the problem is millions of people are watching this movie as if it is historical truth.

(11)
Jonathan Berg,
March 11, 2004 12:00 AM

Mel's Dad

Why did Mel Gibson make this film. Who was it for. Why has no other Hollywood Actor made anything like it. The answer is simple - he did it for his father - a rabid, unpleasant anti-semite!

(10)
Anonymous,
March 11, 2004 12:00 AM

In respnse to "Passion" and commentary

I have always considered myself a spiritual person, reluctant to identify with any organized religous group. After seeing this movie at the insistance of Christian friends, I was appalled that they were all in such reverance of a blatant display of cruelty and violence, unnecessary for the telling of the meaning of the crucification. Anyone who can't see the openly displayed symbolism of direct anti-sematism must be blind. This is not a movie that will bring about good or turn people to Christianity, it turned my stomach. After a life threatening illness several years ago I became absolutely convinced in the presence of God. My response as a reaction to this film was to realize how truly poorly educated I am, despite the holocaust and the massive loss of lives, I still know little about Jewish tradition and interpretation of the scriptures,that is the true shame. So to Mel Gibson I say thank you to waking me to my ignorance, for now I will do all I can to learn about that which I don't know. I do not take your openly bigoted interpretation as gospel. May all beings live in the peace of light reflected from above.

(9)
Dennis Wright,
March 10, 2004 12:00 AM

The promotion and revival of this falsehood is abhorrent, my first exposure to this claim came as a small boy. One of my father's brothers married a catholic girl and my cousins were raised catholic. One of the first things they learned at school was that the Jews killed Jesus. I remember to this day (almost sixty years later) how he drew me aside to confide what he had learned at school, and how shocked I was to be blamed when I wasn't even there.

(8)
Anonymous,
March 9, 2004 12:00 AM

JUSTICE THOU SHALL PURSUE

This accusation aginst the Jews was the nucleus of which directly lead to blood libels, Inquisition of Spain, catalyst for the 6 Million Jews that perished in the Holocaust. For extra measure, should anyone miss Mel Gibson's point, he chose nothing other than gruesome details, depicted in his sadistic figment of his imagination, to maximize his pleasure runs it in slow motion, with all state of the art bells and whistles, in the name of art. If this isn't the epitome of antisemitism, what is?

(7)
Lynn,
March 9, 2004 12:00 AM

Why pick on the Jews and not the Romans?

At the risk of sounding extremely naiive and with no intention of being facetious, I would really like to know this: If the Romans are from Italy and it's universally acknowledged that they killed Jesus, why don't people go around blaming the Italians? Why the Jews when he was Jewish? It just seems to make no sense...the Italians became the strongest Catholics and the Jews became the fault-bearers. How did that happen?

(6)
Susan,
March 8, 2004 12:00 AM

Fight back!

Why don't we just give the explanation of what really happened. There must be Jewish sources that explained what happened at that time period. I don't believe the Gospels' point of view.

(5)
Patti,
March 8, 2004 12:00 AM

Mel Does NOT represent Christianity

Thank you so much for your comments. I despise what Mel has put on the big screen. You are totally right about his inaccuracies. I don't know which New Testament he's been reading but It's not the King James Version.

(4)
al puglisi,
March 7, 2004 12:00 AM

anti semite mel

While I recognize the gospels to be anti-semitic, and purposefully so, I did not want to smear Gibson with that brush. But knowing his father's views, and Gibson's refusal to disavow those views, and then his going ahead to make a movie such as his, I have to admit that yes, Mel Gibson is an anti semite. There can be no doubt about it.My father had many views that were distasteful to me. Not only did I disavow those views, I undertook to change his mind. This does not mean,as Gibson would portend, that one does not love one's father. His remark that "I am not going to let it put a wedge between me and my father" are a lying excuse. Mel Gibson, it has been decided, will not receive one more dime from this household via ticket or video sales.

(3)
Anonymous,
March 7, 2004 12:00 AM

Thanks for the Review

Well said. Mel (as in Melanoma) Gibson may be raking in the money with this pornographic film, but he isn't going to do it with my money. No matter how much money he makes or how many people see it, he is still just a hateful little piece of filth.

(2)
sarah shapiro,
March 7, 2004 12:00 AM

Thank G-d we have such a spokesman.

.

(1)
Steven Kalka,
March 7, 2004 12:00 AM

my reaction to The Passion

I haven't seen the movie, and doubt if I will. It sounds too gory for me.
The Jews in this film may look look villanous. However, I think Jews have overreacted to the possibility of persecutions and physical attacks as a result. Christians in this country who saw the film were very moved and believed that the world's collective sins were purged by the crucifixion. They didn't walk in a vengeful mode.
I'm not sure how Christians in Europe will react, but in any case the main threat to European Jews comes more from the Moslem population than from anyone else.

I live in rural Montana where the Cholov Yisrael milk is difficult to obtain and very expensive. So I drink regular milk. What is your view on this?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Jewish law requires that there be rabbinic supervision during the milking process to ensure that the milk comes from a kosher animal. In the United States, many people rely on the Department of Agriculture's regulations and controls as sufficiently stringent to fulfill the rabbinic requirement for supervision.

Most of the major Kashrut organizations in the United States rely on this as well. You will therefore find many kosher products in America certified with a 'D' next to the kosher symbol. Such products – unless otherwise specified on the label – are not Cholov Yisrael and are assumed kosher based on the DOA's guarantee.

There are many, however, do not rely on this, and will eat only dairy products that are designated as Cholov Yisrael (literally, "Jewish milk"). This is particularly true in large Jewish communities, where Cholov Yisrael is widely available.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein wrote that under limited conditions, such as an institution which consumes a lot of milk and Cholov Yisrael is generally unavailable or especially expensive, American milk is acceptable, as the government supervision is adequate to prevent non-kosher ingredients from being added.

It should be added that the above only applies to milk itself, which is marketed as pure cow's milk. All other dairy products, such as cheeses and butter, may contain non-kosher ingredients and always require kosher certification. In addition, Rabbi Feinstein's ruling applies only in the United States, where government regulations are considered reliable. In other parts of the world, including Europe, Cholov Yisrael is a requirement.

There are additional esoteric reasons for being stringent regarding Cholov Yisrael, and because of this it is generally advisable to consume only Cholov Yisroel dairy foods.

In 1889, 800 Jews arrived in Buenos Aires, marking the birth of the modern Jewish community in Argentina. These immigrants were fleeing poverty and pogroms in Russia, and moved to Argentina because of its open door policy of immigration. By 1920, more than 150,000 Jews were living in Argentina. Juan Peron's rise to power in 1946 was an ominous sign, as he was a Nazi sympathizer with fascist leanings. Peron halted Jewish immigration to Argentina, introduced mandatory Catholic religious instruction in public schools, and allowed Argentina to become a haven for fleeing Nazis. (In 1960, Israeli agents abducted Adolf Eichmann from a Buenos Aires suburb.) Today, Argentina has the largest Jewish community in Latin America with 250,000, though terror attacks have prompted many young people to emigrate. In 1992, the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires was bombed, killing 32 people. In 1994, the Jewish community headquarters in Buenos Aires was bombed, killing 85 people. The perpetrators have never been apprehended.

Be aware of what situations and behaviors give you pleasure. When you feel excessively sad and cannot change your attitude, make a conscious effort to take some action that might alleviate your sadness.

If you anticipate feeling sad, prepare a list of things that might make you feel better. It could be talking to a specific enthusiastic individual, running, taking a walk in a quiet area, looking at pictures of family, listening to music, or reading inspiring words.

While our attitude is a major factor in sadness, lack of positive external situations and events play an important role in how we feel.

[If a criminal has been executed by hanging] his body may not remain suspended overnight ... because it is an insult to God (Deuteronomy 21:23).

Rashi explains that since man was created in the image of God, anything that disparages man is disparaging God as well.

Chilul Hashem, bringing disgrace to the Divine Name, is one of the greatest sins in the Torah. The opposite of chilul Hashem is kiddush Hashem, sanctifying the Divine Name. While this topic has several dimensions to it, there is a living kiddush Hashem which occurs when a Jew behaves in a manner that merits the respect and admiration of other people, who thereby respect the Torah of Israel.

What is chilul Hashem? One Talmudic author stated, "It is when I buy meat from the butcher and delay paying him" (Yoma 86a). To cause someone to say that a Torah scholar is anything less than scrupulous in meeting his obligations is to cause people to lose respect for the Torah.

Suppose someone offers us a business deal of questionable legality. Is the personal gain worth the possible dishonor that we bring not only upon ourselves, but on our nation? If our personal reputation is ours to handle in whatever way we please, shouldn't we handle the reputation of our nation and the God we represent with maximum care?

Jews have given so much, even their lives, for kiddush Hashem. Can we not forego a few dollars to avoid chilul Hashem?

Today I shall...

be scrupulous in all my transactions and relationships to avoid the possibility of bringing dishonor to my God and people.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...